Jones Truck Lines, Inc. v. Camden-El Dorado Exp. Co., CAMDEN-EL

• Decision Date: 12 March 1984
• Docket Number: No. 83-272,CAMDEN-EL,83-272
• Citation: 665 S.W.2d 867,282 Ark. 50
• Parties: JONES TRUCK LINES, INC. et al., Appellants, v.DORADO EXPRESS COMPANY, Appellee.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Page 867

665 S.W.2d 867

282 Ark. 50

JONES TRUCK LINES, INC. et al., Appellants, v. CAMDEN-EL DORADO EXPRESS COMPANY, Appellee.

No. 83-272.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

March 12, 1984.

Rehearing Denied April 9, 1984.

Harper, Young, Smith & Maurras by Don A. Smith, Fort Smith, and Henry & Duckett by James M. Duckett, and Kay L. Matthews, Little Rock, for appellants.

Wood Law Firm by Craig T. Smith, North Little Rock, for appellee.

HOLLINGSWORTH, Justice.

The appellee filed an application with the Arkansas Transportation Commission (ATC) for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to operate as a motor common carrier to transport general commodities. Hearings were held on the application at which appellants: Jones Truck Lines Inc., Southwest Freight Distributors Inc., Superior Forwarding Co., Inc., Woodline Motor Freight Inc., and Sheridan Truck Line Inc., protested the application. The ATC granted the certificate. Appellants appealed the decision to Pulaski Circuit Court where the judge affirmed the decision of the ATC. From that order, appellants bring this appeal claiming that the lower court erred in affirming the ATC decision because the commission's findings of fact were not supported by the evidence and because the ATC failed to follow Arkansas statutes and case law.

In its application, the appellee sought to transport general commodities excluding articles of extraordinary value, class A & B explosives, household goods and commodities in bulk, and commodities requiring special equipment. The proposed territory encompasses Union, Ouchita, and Pulaski Counties with particular emphasis on the Camden-El Dorado area. Since protests were filed by the appellants, a lengthy hearing was held by the ATC. After taking testimony, the Commission found the following in pertinent part:

In the instant case it would serve little purpose to summarize the testimony of each witness, some of which is conflicting. Supporting witnesses, appearing on behalf of applicant, who in the course of their businesses have various commodities to ship, testified at length relating incidences of damage and delay of shipments. There was also testimony that some carriers are failing to make pickups when called and are promising delivery directly to the business establishment however are requiring the consignee to pick up the shipment at a nearby larger city.

Applicant admits in its verified statement that the service to Camden and El Dorado is "in most part adequate," however, it will need that revenue in order to be able to provide "much needed transportation services to outlying areas."

The decision of the Commission was affirmed by the Circuit Court, and the appeal is here under our Rule 29(1)(d). We reverse.

Ark.Stat.Ann. 73-1741 (Repl.1979) provides that the commission's findings "shall be in sufficient detail to enable any court in which any action of the commission is involved to determine the controverted questions presented by the proceeding." Here, the failure of the commission's order to detail and discuss the testimony by various witnesses hampers us on review.

We try cases of this type de novo. Boyd v. The Arkansas Motor Freight Lines, Inc., 222 Ark. 599, 262 S.W.2d 282 (1953). We review all the evidence and make such findings of fact and law as we deem just, proper and equitable, as in chancery cases. Arkansas Commerce Commission v. St. Louis Southwestern Railway Company, 247 Ark. 1032, 448 S.W.2d 950 (1970). When the evidence is evenly balanced, the views of the administrative agency must prevail. Fisher v. Branscum, 243 Ark. 516, 420 S.W.2d 882 (1967). However, we will reverse a finding by the commission if that finding is clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. Wheeling Pipe Line v. Ark. Commerce Commission, 249 Ark. 685, 460 S.W.2d 784 (1970).

In Santee v. Brady, 209 Ark. 224, 189 S.W.2d 907 (1945) we discussed the rules applicable to the grant of a certificate and stated:

The general rule is that a certificate may not be granted where there is existing service in operation over the route applied for, unless the service is inadequate, or additional service would benefit the general public, or unless the existing carrier has been given an opportunity to furnish such additional service as may be required.

* * *

The opportunity to the existing...